Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sam,
I'd submit that the underlying issue is not phrased precisely - from what I have seen, the pertinent question is whether the warning of a legal obligation to report is considered a threat - rather than whether that understanding of a legal obligation is accurate.
The committee is not able to decide on the nature of the obligation, but they should certainly be able to determine if conduct policy as it is written prohibits warnings and notices of a legal obligation to report observed activity. there are far more professions with reporting obligations defined by law than the United States military. Avruchtalk 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I think in one of your votes you missed a tilde. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
--The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam. With regard to your comment here about uninvolved admins on Israel/Palestine articles, my experience is that such an approach would be difficult. Once an uninvolved admin steps in, they are quickly assigned as either "anti-Israel" or "anti-Palestine", based on which particular misbehaving users their attention focuses on first. Thence follows vitriol, and by virtue of answering charges of bias or defending oneself against charges of anti-Semitism or anti-Arabism, the admin is no longer uninvolved. It happens to many admins who set foot more than cursorily on this topic. Again, my perspective may be skewed (or informed) by my own experience, but I thought I'd offer it. MastCell Talk 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Gene Poole has now written that Sealand simultaneously considers itself a micronation and a microstate - though I stated more than once on the discussion page that this is definitely not true. When I removed the information, he called it vandalism. He says that if I change it again I will be reported - what would be the best solution to this? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess my point was, instead of just deleting the Pygmy Guru in such a lazy fashion, I would have expected you to at least try to better the article. Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia? To expand, as a community, each article to provide information for the masses?
It is not your job to police Wikipedia. You technically have no job here. But if you want to better the readers' experience, maybe better the article so that it follows the website's guidelines?
I don't know. I never really thought laziness was an admirable trait of a moderator. Please reconsider.
- Your absolute biggest fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illwillbill (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
This really is terrible of me, but I feel compelled to point out that "obiter dicta" is the plural of "obiter dictum" (in reference to your remarks while rejecting the Rollback ArbCom case.) I hate doing things like this, but my mom taught English and Latin for many years, so a certain level of obnoxiousness is in my blood!
I'll take this opportunity also to point out to you my remarks at the IRC Proposed decision talk page, under the heading "ArbCom Mailing List" regarding David Gerard. I understand you may not wish to offer comment on my question as deliberations continue, but I wanted to point the remarks out to an Arbitrator, just to make sure they didn't "fall through the cracks." I'm guessing that -- since you probably want to beat me right now for being a word-jerk -- this is as good a time as any! ;) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Sam Blacketer! In response to your message regarding New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008, I just wanted to apologize for that edit I made to the results table. I realize that I should have looked more carefully at the information provided.
Would it be possible to write an explanation of the Republican results in the Democratic primary in the article? Your explanation seems to make sense, but a statement verified by a member of the New Hampshire government would be appreciated. That way, the confusion would be minimized.--Dem393 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I did request a RFC for the above mentioned article as you suggested in your decision to deny my request for formal mediation.
Swatjester has posted his opinion on the RFC, the Third Opinion and the RSN. I thought these and all other avenues were to invite neutral third parties not interested in the dispute to post their opinion and the interested should remain uninvolved. I mean the talk page has our failed attemtp at resolution if anyone wanted to see our POV. His opinion and mind shouldn't count and that's why on the the RFC I posted a neutral statement to start the discussion, not my opinion. Should we involve ourselves in the other resolution tools?--Ccson (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You write "I can either prove, or provide conclusive circumstantial evidence, that User:Jaakobou has been operating one or more sock-puppets in order to edit-war. He has had 4 days to tell us how many there are, and name them."
If you have reasonable good faith grounds for believing Jaakobou has been misusing multiple accounts then please send it to the arbitration committee mailing list (where it will be treated confidentially), at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Setting a deadline for Jaakobou to reveal them is not relevant, because that might be taken to imply that such use was acceptable if subsequently declared. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It's far too personal. I'll move it to my sandbox for now. Once all of the I's and so on are removed, I'll put it back. Zenwhat (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sam, hi! I'm trying to sort out the European Parliament constituencies (the aim is to furnish each one from every EU country with at least a stub containing a map, infobox, sources, navbox and brief description). I've completed the 2004-2009 term [1] and 1999-2004 term [2], (although there is some debate about the names of the Polish constituencies, with contradictory sources), so my attention is now on the 1994-1999 term. During this period, the UK used a plurality voting system with one MEP per constituency, with the result that there were (approx) 80 UK constituencies between 1979 and 1999. So finding sources for them is going to be a whole new world of fun. A brief google search for one of them threw up your subarticle, User:Sam Blacketer/EP constituencies, which - yay! - lists them all. This will help me immensely in my search for sources. With that in mind, can I ask you not to delete that list for a few months whilst i work thru it? Failing that, would you mind if I copied it to one of my sandboxes? Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, requesting my inclusion on this case. I've added my own comments to that section. I trust that ArbCom would do due diligence in verifying any allegation Sanchez might make about me. I'm sure you are well-aware that there have been a full array of unsubstatiated allegations made by him already. And as you can see, from my Talk page, I was invited into this ArbCom after I'd been out of the Sanchez wars for many months. Very surprised to see it had once more degenerated from the consensus view we'd had before. Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message I have replied here [3]. Giano (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The membership, structure, and procedures of the group shall be subject to the approval of the Committee
I am willing to join the working group. I am not an admin so I don't qualify for the Committee. My qualifications are:
1. I am a nice and fair person.
2. I have not edited the articles in dispute.
3. I want to better WP and I am willing to help.
4. I have been called "polite" during a potential conflict which never turned into conflict. (AFD related).
This isn't being power hungry because the working group has no power. It's there to help solve a big problem.Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
About your comments here [4]
Do you think WP:FRINGE should be eliminated?
I'm not accusing you here, just wondering. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not seen such a ban on any of the Homeopathy related article but I am wondering if such bans are review-able by arbcom upon demand by the blocked user(s) ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just letting you know I fired you off an email about a minute ago :) Nothing terribly urgent, though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a question. A recent request for arbitration concerning Elvis Presley has been rejected by the arbitrators. See [5]. Now my opponents who unsuccessfully requested the case are joining forces in order to promote their preferred version of the article. Interestingly, my old opponent Lochdale who has been banned from editing Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision, is among them using the IP 130.208... See this discussion. Rikstar says, "If more people agree than disagree with this change, then the edit should go ahead. The minority who disagree will have to accept it." See [6]. Is it really in line with Wikipedia policy that some Elvis fans can determine the content of the article if they are in the majority? Another user, Egghead06, said that there "appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to achieve some internal star or pat-on-the back." See [7]. Administrator and Elvis fan LaraLove replied that this sentence by Egghead06 "is an ignorant one." See [8]. I would like to hear some unbiased third-party statements. Arbitrator FT2 also suggested that outside views would be helpful (possibly backed by uninvolved adminstrators). Do you have an idea how to handle this matter? Onefortyone (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mr Blacketer, I'm Mussav, we spoke once, I need you to help me on this, there is a member called User:07fan and he is keep removing the content/ sourced info. and he is causing Edit war, the conflict in The House of Wisdom page. could you help me please by talking to him or to tell me how I can talk to Moderators. many thanks. Mussav (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Iraq does not "means everything", the Iraq page on Wikpedia is about Iraq the modern country. As for your claim that "Ctesiphon became Al-Madain" please study Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, then the editor is engaged in original research." That is exactly what you`re doing here, synthesizing sources when they do not support your assertions. --07fan (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think you missed voting on the enforcement paragraph, and I added an alternative proposal to one you abstained on that you might want to take a look at. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:
If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements.
TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm done with that page anyway. The spammers have won. Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sam Blacketer! I'm trying to understand ArbCom a little bit, and would like some advice. I'm an admin that's been involved in .. discussions .. at Talk:Matt Sanchez. As you know, the article is on probation. In my mind, the information at WP:SANCTIONS is a bit vague. For instance, discussions on the Sanchez article often get to the point where it seems like one editor is disagreeing with a second just because of who the suggester is, with no regard to the suggestion itself. "A" says 'lets use this picture', "B" replies 'no' simply because it's A suggesting.
When does it become a matter of "disruptive edits"? When do you say "Hey - you're just being stubborn to make a point"? Can edits to the talk page be considered "disruptive"?
And if, for some reason we discuss here, it's determined that a particular user is "disruptive", am I, as an involved editor/administrator, allowed to be the one to block? Or should I request a third-party admin?
A whole lot of questions, I know. I'm sorry. I just feel like editors are being stubborn and blocking actual progress that could be made on an article that sorely needs it. And I don't want to be accused of "abusing" admin tools. Though it does seem that the article can't make any progress unless someone is drastic. <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
As an overly frustrated user I'd like to know if arbitration committee is paying any attention at all to the evidence I presented. I'd prefer a rational explanation over senseless silence. I have had my fair share from arbcom inactivity. I am quite tired of it. -- Cat chi? 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what about this article redirect to a user page? WP:LOTD Gary King (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to personally thank you, Sam, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on m:OTRS. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ha ha i love the way you sit like a dog at davids camerons page in order to revert any impending edits about him, god you conservitive, connies is more apt as it is all a con with you horrible lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.195.202 (talk • contribs)
You didn't vote on the Enforcement provision ... was that an inadvertent omission, or is there an issue there we should discuss? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Aramgar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [16]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [17]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a case per your request. You said this would only be an arbitration issue if it results in divisive administrative action.
While I find it strange that arbcom is more than qualified in identifying sockpuppets, I'll "humor" the processes a little bit more. This is adding to my frustration so I would like to know what kind of a case would arbcom be willing to see assuming the divisive administrative action happens.
-- Cat chi? 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as an arbitrator who was active on the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam, I was about to invite you to defend your wishful-thinking football analogy and ill-considered comparisons with conscientious church members in defence of the utterly unconscionable Prem Rawat employee and POV pushing revisionist Jossi Fresco over on Arbcom. But I noticed you have some interest in past British MPs which is far less a depressing subject to contemplate first thing Saturday morning :-) For family reasons I am trying to find information about my grandfather Frank Clarke who was a popular MP for Erith in the 1930's, an active scout leader, on good terms with the king (George V?) and instrumental in the building of the Dartford Tunnel. Any ideas where I might begin?PatW (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I read your judgement in the arbitration request, and while I respectfully agree with the points you have raised, I am disappointed the case is unlikely to proceed. I just wanted to clarify - if the case proceeded, there'd be no guarantee that the editor was unblocked, right? It may so happen that a tighter remedy is applied? I was under this impression when I made the opinion that the case should proceed. If I'm wrong, then I'd change my opinion accordingly. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
how did this happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.10.90 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sam, thank you for writing about your perspective as an arbitrator; it gives me some insight into the situation in which you find yourself. I have responded on Giano's talk page, but I wanted to especially emphasise to you that I don't see this as a Giano-specific issue; it just happens that Giano is the only editor under a civility parole who happens to be on my watchlist. Well, that was, until MONGO got hit last week. But I see the same repeated cycle of mutual overreaction and escalation repeating over and over in these "civility" cases, and what we are doing is just not working, for anyone. I can sense the frustration in your post, and I believe you may be seeing some of the same things that I am. I'd rather work to solve these issues globally than just with respect to Giano, because I think we all need it, but I don't know how to do that as one voice being drowned out by all of this hyperbole and rhetoric on all sides. I am open to suggestion. Risker (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page, Sam - it was much appreciated! I've replied in a few paragraphs there (not too long, I promise!) - and if you are at all amenable I'd love to catch up in a 'real time' forum, at any time convenient for you! drop me a line any time if you can find a moment... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for voting Keep in my MfD poll. With your help, the debate ended with "no consensus" (although a large majority voted to "keep"). --GHcool (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you deleted my page, somehow rendering me as "lacking significance".
Can you either (a) help me to reverse this problem, or (b) help me add significance to my life - enough that would re-qualify me for my wiki page? Perhaps I need to volunteer with misguided youths?
Thank you kindly,
Janie Porche Janieporche (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi just to let you know that I have raised Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unknown283 which appears to be an almost exact copy of your userpage. -- EhsanQ (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, in my topic ban case I've felt quite frustrated from the very beginning. I was never warned and have acted, generally, with patience with the entire proceedings. Now, per this, my appeal has been vectored away and I'm still left with few, if any, answers. I was told to appeal to Arbcom and they were the only ones could could overturn an admin and now am being told that Arbcom appeal isn't needed and that admins can reverse the ban. Where can I turn please? Any help appreciated. Banjeboi 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I too would be suspicious of an editor who used the summary "formating" when providing significant changes as you thought was going on here, as you assumed here [19] However, those changes that I made in both of those instances WAS formatting. Just minutes before doing THESE minor formating changes, I proposed a larger change, as evidenced here...and that is probably summarized, as "Several important meta-analyses published in RS and notable journals...please review before changing or deleting" [20] This is a perfectly accurate summary, but I screwed up the formating of the references and therefore had to correct them twice. These two edits WERE formating issues to the complex new review of meta-analyses that I provided just previously (in re-doing my edit, I had to delete an entire section of previous NEW information, and then provide correct formating of references. In THIS instance, I urge you to see the good faith efforts here, not anything else. I hope that you will clarify the charge that you have made here because my actions were legitimate and honest. If another editor "alerted" you to your previous assumption of bad faith of my part, I hope that you tell us who did this and that you will consider this editor as having an extreme POV and as evidence malicious behavior. Thanx to user:FT2 for noting this confusion and to helping to correct it (confirming my good faith here). Humbly yours... DanaUllmanTalk 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am startled by the proposal for a sourcing arbitration board--please see my reply to Kiril on my talk page. I will be discussing it further of course somewhere in the arb com structure & probably elsewhere. Had you confined it to the immediate question presented by the Homeopathy articles, it would have had some justification. Please reconsider. DGG (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'll be voting on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision, as one of the arbitrators who accepted this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Done
In your rejection of the request for clarification, you quote the additional restriction that was piled on top of the others in February: "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." This means that I get to make one appeal between the time that restriction was passed and its one year anniversary next February, correct? Everyking (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam, do you happen to know if the MP for Winchester 1964-1979 is still alive? I noticed Simon Heffer referred to him as the late Morgan Morgan-Giles in one of his articles but I can find no obituary online. Thanks. --Dovea (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tony Blair article has had his stewardship (of the Chiltern Hundreds) for some considerable time. I see no harm in it. David (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you have blocked Life.temp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a sock puppet[21]. Perhaps I'm missing something but I can't find any information regarding the basis for this block. There's an open sockpuppet report on this editor at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, a somewhat related sockpuppet discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth, and further discussion of the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil and Talk:Barack Obama. Would you mind clarifying, or pointing us all, to information on which user this account is a sockpuppet of, how definite the conclusion is, etc. That could probably bear on the decision on how to deal with the Barack Obama article. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You had blocked RedSpruce for 3RR and he was later blocked for "edit warring" at Elizabeth Bentley. He is making the same changes again to articles that got him blocked last time. He has reversed multiple edits to these three articles back to his last version, overriding both consensus, and doing it during an active RFC:
This is probably the fifth time in each article. No conditions were placed on him during his last block, so they continue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A third party reverted his changes, and he re-reverted them once again. Do you have any thoughts on the issue? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
[22] leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. I urge you to get active, to speak up, to give the community some guidance, to drive discussion on the list. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like, even the discussion of other cases... should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
He has broken the unblocking condition of You do not make any edits concerning administrative subdivisions of the United Kingdom, whether current or historical. - here [23] MRSC • Talk 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across Campbell Adamson in the Uncategorised people category. I'm really not sure how to categorize it, so I thought I'd ask you. It also looks like you sort of forgot to finish it. Thanks, Psychless 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).
I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.
I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.
It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.
cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
First, would like to ask if you could please vote in the motions at RfAr?
Another thing I'd like to remind you of is the 2 arb-clarifications - waiting on voting on discretionary sanctions remedy. 2 votes have been cast for the remedy as was decided in the homeopathy case. If you could vote on that sometime soon, that would be great as well. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam, I saw you were online; would you be able to vote in the two motions at RfAr? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam. I've added an addendum to my statement at that RfArb. Would you be able to confirm whether I'm talking about the same amendment that you are? Maybe you could link to it in your comment? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A few frustrated voices here. —Giggy 11:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you might want to explain this. What looks particularly disturbing is how this case was accepted when it seemed to be about Cla68 and is proposed to be dismissed when it's obvious that his "ongoing problematic behaviour" was not the central issue. Lacking a good faith explanation for this dismissal, bad faith explanations obviously abound ... Merzul (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You've failed the community you should represent, utterly. Posting anonymously and through a proxy to avoid reprecussions. 77.105.27.92 (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sam Blacketer,
Regarding this, I'm concerned that User:Yorkshirian is breaking his terms of being allowed to edit by editting the Yorkshire article once again ([24]). I think it would be more than right of me too, to point out there is now a consensus to ban Yorkshrian for a period of 1 year per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed_decision#Yorkshirian_banned. Can you advise? --Jza84 | Talk 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"It is true to say Avruch's remarks seemed to start the whole thing off, " ummm, it doesnt take too long looking at the edits to see the action that realy set the whole thing off. And, no, it wasn't Durova. She would have had nothing to comment on had another editor not made such a gross blunder. Yet, nowhere in this case have the real preciptiating events been looked at. I hope they are being looked at somewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors".[25] Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room".[26] I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant"[27] before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC).
Struggling to pretend that this isn't about Giano is a poor joke William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You need to withdraw your motion to dismiss the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV|C68-FM-SV case. None of your colleagues have supported it. Moreover, by now, it should be abundantly clear that the parties' unacceptable behavior (which you termed "vexing but unsanctionable") is recent, ongoing and worsening. Read the evidence, and make a decision. Step up and do your job. Thank you, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam. Long time since we've interacted so hope you're doing well and arbcom isn't too much of a hassle! If you could just pop back to the above request when you have a free minute and state where you would prefer the case to take place, it would be much appreciated. Take it easy, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
As I feel only a 'rational wise judge' can do justice to my case of deletion. I am not a good writer but my content is crucial and only trapped in sub-communities religious bias which has become a Brhmo-Phobia in wikipedia too . I request your highness to post some urgent translator of Hindi to my references /notability of news/reviews at :
Alan Sun --Dralansun (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
You say: "I am sure you have become confused about the question of whether the title 'Secretary of State for Industry' should be capitalised. This is, or rather was, the official title of the post, and the Wikipedia approach is to follow usage elsewhere which is invariably to capitalise. You may wish to examine the obituaries for Eric Varley in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, and The Independent, all of which have either 'Industry Secretary' so capitalised or 'Secretary of State for Industry' so capitalised, or both." I am not confused, thank you. The style for the list is not to capitalise references to such positions unless used as part of a name e.g. King Juan Carlos, but the king of Spain. The usage of those newspapers is not relevant. Newspapers have different rules of style. We want uniformity for the particular article. You say further: "I cannot understand your comment about 'house style' not just because Wikipedia policy is invariably to use the same capitalisation as other sources, but also because the article titles actually in use and listed in Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom show the proper capitalisation is actually in use. Could you explain where you believe this has been discussed? " Wikipedia policy is not to use the same capitalisation. There is no uniform policy. The Washington Post uses a different style guide than the Daily Telegraph. It is to use the consensus of editors to create uniformity in the particular article. The more modern usage is to avoid an ugly overuse of capitals. Even more it is best to avoid a dog's dinner of different rules for capitalisation on the same page. Look at the rest of the list for this month, look at the discussions on the matter previously. This was settled a long time ago. Jagdfeld (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so that you are aware, I have addressed a comment specifically to you here. I have not commented on this RFC, nor do I intend to; however, I am concerned that there are unforeseen implications to the deletion of it that will have a longterm negative effect on the ability of the community to resolve issues without having to come before the Arbitration Committee. The committee already has enough on its plate without having to address concerns at this level. Risker (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you go do your job on the C68/FM/SV case instead of interfering with community processes? --Random832 (contribs) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you call it vandalism? It's a personal attack on the person who sent Anthrax through the U.S. Postal system. Call a spade a spade (personal attack), not a diamond (vandalism). --122.2.225.174 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Regards , This to report vandalism & using Abusive languages as part of vandalism from New Delhi by IP 117.96.113.237 . Hereby we request you Ban of IP 117.96.113.237 & which shud be a lesson for all.
Where Contribution of him is seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rani,_Rajasthan&action=history
Used Farzi word meaning Fraud, Faltu meaning Useless , Gandmara meaning Asshole .
Hope you will do needful , to maintain quality of this encylopedia.
you are invited to join apocopedia, a wiki of apocalyptic scenarios. If you do choose to join, adminship is yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyfish (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
In order to maintain a neutral point of view policy :
- Please for your next writing ,Don't say or generalize saying that 'Basque Nacionalist' involved in political violence .'Basque Nacionalist' is NOT sinonym of violence or terrorism, Let's point it clearly ,ok ¡¡¡
Because there are Basque Nacionalist parties as Catalan Nacionalist Parties ,and all over Europe .. ,that NEVER used political violence or terrorist violence supporting Nacionalist ideas ( Pnv,Ciu,Eusko alkartasuna,..) that never used nor supported terrorism or bombs ),
and actually those who defended the violence(political through terrorism ,actually ),currently 'Batasuna' , are a minority in the basque country comparing to the rest of political parties including or not the 'Spanish Nacionalist ' or 'unionists'.
The people like Gorostiaga,in Batasuna, (former Herri Batasuna ,Euskal Herritarrok,EHAK,ANV ,..) are involved or have been involved with the supporting of ETA in several decades or years , so let's maintain a neutral point of view policy , and Let's put the true about the violent Nacionalism that they practice ,that is not representative of the 'Basque Nacionalism ',because they are not the 'Basque Nacionalism' they are the terrorist and mafiosi Nacionalism .
And Don't present to Gorostiaga like an 'angel ' in the paradise or like a 'saint'in Europe defending political ideas ,because they(Batasuna=ETA) always have been and are behaving like mafiosi and fascist people who do not respect others and menace and kill many people in the name of basques,killing also basques, aswell as nacionalist basques. And that is a disgrace or misfortune for the rest of Basques who are nacionalist basque or not,and for everyone who has a relative, a friend or someone that have been assasined .
So ,in the name of neutral point of view policy ,I expect that you should look for a place, a web to say ,clearly, that terrorists don't represent 'basque nacionalists' and that Batasuna & ETA are terrorist ,true mafiosi and killers ,and that the Basques are truly fed up of these stupid 'exploits' of these individuals or groups of Batasuna & Friends.
Thanks a lot .
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.133.114 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
--Gatoclass (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sam, if a lengthy explanation of a why a recusal is unnecessary is required, that's a pretty good indicator a recusal is necessary. Neıl ☄ 09:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to be pulled into the discussion, however, now that I have, I would ask that you not speak on my behalf. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
At the C68-FM-SV voting page you included in your vote the comment "in practice different editors have different judgments of what constitutes a minor edit." The Help file says, in part: "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Would you consider modifying your comment to indicate clearly that editorial judgment does not extend outside of that "could never be the subject of a dispute" standard, which the community has in no way challenged? Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As a member who accepted the case, perhaps you might like to vote on this case. 5 arbs have voted so far - at least 2 more are needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Done
All items pass now, and there's a move to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
My page is not an attack on other peoples work it is my own work from the institue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jembay (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam. I've just been doing a bit of thinking about the MZMcBride casename should it be accepted. I'm not sure anything with Sarah Palin in the title would be good at all, simply because of delicate nature of the person involved, and the fact that our article dispute has been documented in a number of news articles. Maybe something along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protection wheel war might be better (should it be accepted). Just a thought anyway. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
His response to your .. hrm.. request? Anyway, it is found here, please read and reconsider.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Hindu law jurists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by and improving the above. Much appreciated. Dick G (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
We're nearing the end of this case. :) If you can vote on proposed remedy 6, then I think we'll be done. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Done
Hope you saw my response. As I said there, sorry if it was conveyed as insulting your intelligence. Regards, Caulde 17:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Congrats on the article! Alansohn (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
I present this barnstar to you for working to successfully close Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. NE2 06:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hi. I placed a 'suspected sockpuppet' notice for Tre2 (Cmmmm) about a week ago. The user has neither confirmed not denied sockpuppetting (though Tre2 has since not made any edits), and nothing seems to have happened at the sockpuppets page. What happens now?--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the mail. I had a look on Leigh Rayments Peerage page and found a date of birth and a year of death. I checked the GRO register which showed him dying in June 2003 at Hastings - also gave his middle name on both sources so added - I checked the GRO index for his birth but it did not show it. The index is good only for England and Wales and it could be that he was born elsewhere. I have access to the Index through my genealogy research.
Hi, I see you've done a lot of work on Charles Beattie. I assume you will be nominating that for GA or FA status?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, sir. Regarding this protection, I need to correct a mistake on there regarding my name. Thomas Michael William Patrick Sales 14:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Er, I don't mean to be a pain in the arse, but that user that you protected the talk page on has not only violated the 3RR, but he then went on to do 14 reverts in a row, accusing me of being the IP who edit warred him. Thomas Michael William Patrick Sales 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Last year, you granted an unblock request from me. I am now the subject of a community discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_sanctions_proposals. I'd like to request for your input at that discussion. Thank you, --G2bambino (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)